[Thus spake Bill Studenmund ("BS: ") 10:32am...]
BS: Unfortunately, though, we can't just have a cpp define. The problem is we
BS: need to test according to the gcc that compiled the program, not the one
BS: that compiled libc. :-(
Yeah, there's that, too. Note that I was NOT advocating a cpp::#define
(unless it's an "#if 0" that we could easily rip out) -- that's an
egregious hack to work around an egregious hack. I was merely suggesting
that we code around it pro tempore, reverting the code when the compiler
became unbroken.
It's not a bad thing to be able to request explicitly, but for
printf(literal-with-no-formatting) to "upgrade" itself to puts() WITHOUT
explicitly being requested, though, that's just wrong.
--*greywolf;
--